Can defendants claim plea agreement breaches when defense counsel endorsed modified terms? State v. Shaffer Explained

In State v. Shaffer, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant can successfully claim a plea agreement breach when defense counsel affirmatively endorsed modified sentencing recommendations at the hearing.

Background and Facts

Shaffer pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery under an agreement where the State promised to recommend a suspended prison sentence and two years in jail with credit for time served. However, at sentencing, defense counsel represented to the court that the agreement actually called for one additional year in jail without credit for time served. The prosecutor then agreed with this modified recommendation, which added approximately thirty-nine days to Shaffer’s confinement. The trial court ultimately rejected both recommendations and sentenced Shaffer to five years to life in prison as recommended by Adult Probation and Parole.

Key Legal Issues

Shaffer raised three alleged breaches of the plea agreement: (1) the modified sentencing recommendation, (2) failure to inform the pre-sentence investigator of the State’s recommendation, and (3) statements at sentencing that allegedly undermined the recommendation. Since these issues were not preserved at trial, Shaffer argued plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that even if the modified recommendation constituted a breach, it was invited error because defense counsel “explicitly and affirmatively represented to the trial court” the modified terms before the prosecutor spoke. Under the invited error doctrine, parties cannot take advantage of errors they led the trial court to commit.

Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found no prejudice because the trial court completely rejected the State’s recommendation in favor of a much harsher sentence. The court noted that where the trial court imposed five years to life instead of the recommended jail term, “it is not at all likely that the trial court would have followed the original recommendation.”

The court also rejected claims about other alleged breaches, finding insufficient evidence that the State failed to communicate with probation officials and that the prosecutor’s statements at sentencing did not impermissibly undermine the plea agreement.

Practice Implications

This case highlights the critical importance of careful preparation before sentencing hearings. Defense counsel must thoroughly review plea agreements and ensure accuracy when representing terms to the court. The invited error doctrine can preclude appellate relief even when legitimate concerns exist about plea agreement compliance. Additionally, when trial courts impose sentences significantly more severe than any recommendation, demonstrating prejudice from alleged breaches becomes nearly impossible under both plain error and ineffective assistance standards.